science, technology and innovation indicators: benchmarking r&d policies an historical...
TRANSCRIPT
Science, Technology and Innovation indicators:benchmarking R&D policies
• An historical perspective
• The “Frascati Manual” and the “Oslo Manual”
• S&T indicators
• Innovation indicators
• Some evidence from innovation surveys
• Concluding remarks
C&T in OCDE: 63-95C&T in OCDE: 63-95
DE
NL
BE
PTGR
ITIE
US
JP
UK
FR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
1963Staff in R&D / 1000 inhabitants
% GNP applied in R&D
DE
NL
UEBE
PT
GR
IT
IE US
JPUK
FR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
1995
DE
NL
BE
PTGR
ITIE
US
JP
UK
FR UE
JP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
S&T indicators: evolving from basic indicatores...
• Output, impact, efficiency: output/input
... The need for: terms of reference
a model of analysis
Which effects to be considered???
• Other effects: how to consider the “context”??• Time• Scale: scale/intensity• Structure• Space• .....
The exponential growth of S&T indicators at the international level
Decades 50s and 60s 70s 80s 90s
Main indicators used Re&D Re&D Re&D Re&DPatents Patents PatentsTechnological balance Technological balance Technological balanceof payments of payments of payments
High-tech products High-tech productsand sectors and sectorsBibliometrics BibliometricsHuman resources Human resources
Innovation surveys Innovation surveysInnovations mentioned intechnical literatureSurveys of productiontechnologiesGovernment support toindustrial technologyIntangible investmentIndicators of informationand communication technologiesInput-Output matrixes *Productivity *Venture capital *Mergers and acquisitions *
* Indicators mutuated from economic analysis.
Definition of research and development (Frascati Manual)
• R&D is defined as creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.
The linear model
• Research-based
• Sequential
• Tecnocratic
Period 1960's-1970's 1980's-early1990's
1990's - nextmillennium
Model Linear model Chain-linkedmodel
Systemsapproaches
Conception Simple Complex Extremelycomplex
Number ofindicators
Few(R&D, patents,TBP)
Many(R&D, patents,bibliometrics,innovation, hightech products,humanresources)
Too many(combinationsof existing andpossibly newindicators,quantitative/qualitative)
Development of indicators
“The Chain Link Model”
Potential Markets
Invention/analytical design
Detailed design & Test
Re-design & Production
Distribution & market
Knowledge
Research
Kline & Rosenberg (1986)
Technology platforms
BUS
“Communities of practice”
Technological innovation(Oslo Manual)
• Technological innovations comprise new products and processes and significant technological changes of products, services and processes.
• An innovation has been implemented if it has been introduced on the market (product and service innovation) or used within a production process (process innovation).
Technological innovation(Oslo Manual)
• Innovations involve a series of scientific, technological, organisational, financial and commercial activities.
• The product or process should be new (or rignificantly improved) to the firm (it does not necessarily have to be new to the relevant market)
Science and technology indicators
• Human resources for S&T • R&D• Patents• Bibliometrics• Technological balance of payments• Trade in high-tech products
Permilagem de investigadores (ETI) pela população activa, para o último ano disponível
2.803.303.31
4.564.885.055.155.405.49
6.206.456.46
6.958.08
9.109.26
13.08
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
ItáliaGrécia
PortugalEspanha
ÁustriaIrlanda
HolandaEuropa 15
Reino UnidoFrança
AlemanhaDinamarca
BélgicaEUA
SuéciaJapão
Finlândia
Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; Uk, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: 1999. Média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Novos doutorados em ciência e tecnologia por permilagem de população entre os 25 e os 34 anos,
para o último ano disponível
0.160.19
0.240.26
0.340.36
0.480.490.50
0.560.590.60
0.680.76
0.811.09
1.24
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
ItáliaGréciaJapão
PortugalHolanda
EspanhaEUA
DinamarcaIrlanda
Europa 15ÁustriaBélgica
Reino UnidoFrança
AlemanhaFinlândia
Suécia
Notas: I, UE: 1999; todos os outros países referem-se a 2000; A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo; Os dados da Espanha são provisionais.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
The effect of scale:
Scale vs Intensity in R&D
Scale vs Intensity in R&D(OECD, 2000)
Sweden
Finland Japan
France
Germanythe Netherlands
Denmark
UK
US
Belgium
Austria
Ireland
Italy
SpainPortugal
Greece
0
0,005
0,01
0,015
0,02
0,025
0,03
0,035
0,04
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Scale- Total Expenditure in R&D ($PPP; logarithmic scale)
Inte
nsit
y-
Sh
are
of
GD
P s
pen
t o
n R
&D
The effect of time:Dynamic effects to complement static data
Crescimento médio anual dos investigadores pela população activa, para o último ano disponível
-2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Itália
França
Alemanha
Japão
Reino UnidoEuropa 15
Dinamarca
Suécia
Holanda
EUA
BélgicaPortugal
Espanha
Irlanda
Finlândia
Grécia
Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; UK, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: 1999. Média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo e a Áustria.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento de Novos doutorados por permilagem de população, entre os 25 e os 34 anos, entre 1999 e 2000
-4.80-2.76
0.070.26
0.741.05
1.542.452.642.75
3.934.29
5.248.52
9.099.76
13.98
-5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
HolandaIrlandaEUADinamarcaJapãoFrançaEuropa 15ÁustriaItáliaAlemanhaBélgicaSuéciaReino UnidoEspanhaGréciaFinlândiaPortugal
Notas: I, UE: 1998-1999. A média da UE não inclui o LuxemburgoFonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
GERD: 1995 - 1999
1.0
1.8
2.6
2.8
3.4
3.8
4.2
5.1
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.9
8.2
9.9
12.0
13.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
França
Reino Unido
Itália
Japão
Europa 15
Alemanha
Holanda
Suécia
Áustria
EUA
Dinamarca
Bélgica
Espanha
Irlanda
Portugal
Grécia
Finlândia
Notas: B, DK, EL, IRL, I, NL, S: 1995-1999; JP: 1996-2000; Todos os outros países e UE: 1995-2000. A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
0,0000
0,5000
1,0000
1,5000
2,0000
2,5000
Federal Support for R&D as a Percent of GDP Nonfederal Support for R&D as a Percent of GDP
The historical evidence: intensity of R&D support in US
Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)
Federal
Private
The historical evidence: cumulative R&D support in US
Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Federal Support for R&D as a Percent of GDP Nonfederal Support for R&D as a Percent of GDP
Private
Federal
0
0,025
0,05
0,075
0,1
0 0,125 0,25 0,375 0,5
Pub
lic
R&
D E
xpen
ditu
res
per
capi
ta
Private R&D Expenditures per capita
Canada
DenmarkFinland
France
Germany
Ireland
Japan
Netherlands
Norway
PortugalSpain
Sweden
UK
US
Belgium
Canada
Czech Rep
Denmark Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
SpainSweden
Turkey
UK
US
Perspectives for “change”:Perspectives for “change”:Public vs private R&D expendituresPublic vs private R&D expenditures
P97
P95
P81
ESIR
SE
JP
USA
FR
D
UK
characterizing structure:Public and private funding of R&D
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Portugal (1997)Greece (1997)
Mexico New Zealand (1997)
Turkey (1997)Hungary
PolandAustralia (1998)
IcelandSpain
ItalyNetherlands (1998)
Austria (1993)Norway (1997)
CanadaDenmark
Slovak RepublicCzech Republic
FranceEU
United KingdomFinland
GermanyOECDJapan
Switzerland (1996)Korea
Belgium (1997)Ireland (1997)
Sweden (1997)United States
Business Expenditure on R&D as a Percentage of the Total Expenditure on R&D (1999)
With the exception of the less developed OECD countries, business expenditure on R&D accounts for the majority of total expenditure, and has an overwhelming share (close or above ¾) in the most developed countries
With the exception of the less developed OECD countries, business expenditure on R&D accounts for the majority of total expenditure, and has an overwhelming share (close or above ¾) in the most developed countries
BERD / GERDBERD / GERD
Share of R&D funding (OECD) OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain Slovak Republic
Portugal
Poland
Norway
New Zealand
Netherlands
Mexico
KoreaJapan
Italy
Ireland
Iceland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech RepublicCanada
Belgium
Austria Australia
Business
Higher Education Government0
100
100
0
100
Industry-dominated systems
Balanced Industry+ /government systems
Balanced Industry/government+ systems
Government-dominated systems
Share of R&D expenditure (OECD) OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
Australia
Austria
Belgium
CanadaCzech RepublicDenmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
JapanKorea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Business
Higher Education Public research institutions0
100
100
0
100
0
Industry-dominated systems
Balanced industry/government systems with universities being more important performers than public
research institutions
Government-dominated systems
Balanced industry/government systems with public research institutions being more important
performers than universities
Share of R&D funding and expenditure (OECD)
OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
Industry dominated systems Balanced systems (universities)
Balanced systems (public labs) Government dominated systems
0 0
0
100
100 100
Business
Higher education Government
FundingPerforming
Portugal
USA
Spain
Irland
Hungary
Netherlands
Variation of BERD: 1995-1999
0.981.99
2.433.553.81
4.815.445.665.946.24
8.409.299.30
10.5211.92
12.6917.36
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
ItáliaReino Unido
JapãoÁustriaFrança
Europa 15Alemanha
BélgicaSuécia
HolandaEUA
EspanhaIrlandaGrécia
PortugalDinamarca
Finlândia
Notas: JP:1996-2000; A, D, E, P, FIN, EUA: 1995-2000; Todos os outros países e UE:1995-1999Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Comparative growth in public and total R&D expenditures
(average annual growth rates over 1995-2001, or nearest years available)
TurkeyChina
Portugal
New ZealandMexico Iceland
FinlandGreece
Czech Republic IrelandPolandKorea
SwedenHungary Spain
Norway
BelgiumAustralia
Italy IsraelTotal OECDUnited States
DenmarkCanada
NetherlandsGermanyEuropean Union
United KingdomFrance
Japan
Slovak Republic-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Total R&D Expenditures
Pu
blic
R&
D E
xp
en
dit
ure
s
Growth of Public and Private expenditure on R&D OECD, S&T databases, October 2001
European UnionTotal OECD
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Sw edenSpain
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Poland
Norw ay
New Zealand
Netherlands
Mexico
Korea
Japan
Italy
IrelandIceland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
Australia
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Private R&D expenditures
Pu
blic
R&
D e
xp
en
dit
ure
s
Percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no sector privado com financiamento público, no último ano disponível
8.8
9.0
9.0
10.2
11.4
15.1
24.5
28.6
29.8
48.6
53.5
56.9
57.8
60.1
70.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Japão
França
EUA
Reino Unido
Alemanha
Europa 15
Itália
Áustria
Holanda
Dinamarca
Espanha
Finlândia
Irlanda
Portugal
Grécia
Notas: JP, I, E, FIN, P:2000; A: 1998; IRL: 1997; Todos os outros países e UE: 1999; A média Europeia não inclui a Bélgica, Luxemburgo e Suécia; Os dados da Irlanda só se referem a PMEs independentes.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento médio anual da percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no sector privado com financiamento público, de 1995 até ao último ano
disponível
-9.3-8.8
-3.1-2.1
-0.9-0.6
3.23.5
11.112.2
13.724.7
30.531.9
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
GréciaReino UnidoAlemanhaEspanhaFrançaHolandaJapãoEuropa 15IrlandaEUAFinlândiaItáliaPortugalDinamarca
Notas: JP, I, Fin, P: 1995-2000;E:1999-2000; IRL:1995-1997; D, DK, UE, EUA:1997-1999; Todos os outros países:1995-1999; A média da UE não inclui a Bélgica, Espanha, Irlanda, Luxemburgo, Áustria e Suécia.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Characterizing efficiency:• Scientific Production
• Technological capacity
• ...
Absolute R&D Expenditures and Scientific Production (1997).OECD (2000)
US
JapanGermany
France
UK
Italy
Spain
The Netherlands
SwedenBelgium
Finland
Denmark
Austria
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
100.00 1,000.00 10,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00
Total Expenditure in R&D ($PPP; logarithmic scale)
Nu
mb
er
of
Art
icle
s P
ub
lish
ed
in
1995 (
log
ari
thm
ic s
cale
)
Technological Capacity ( PATENTS / GDP) 1996
Source: OST, 1998Source: OST, 1998
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
Média UE = 100Média UE = 100
Scientific Capacity (PUBLICATIONS / GNP) 1996
Source: OST, 1998Source: OST, 1998
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
Média UE = 100Média UE = 100
Technological CapacityTechnological Capacity
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60Patents/R&D spending by com panies (m illion PPS, 1987 prices)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pu
blic
atio
ns/
no
n-B
ER
D(m
illio
n S
PP
, 198
7 p
rice
s)
GR
PT
ES
FR IT
BE
SE
UK DK
EU
ADE
FI USNL
JP
IRL
source: Caracostas & Muldur (1998)
Scientific “Productivity” and inter-institutional cooperationEC Benchmark of S&T Policies, September 2001
Innovation : Innovation :
What do we know?What do we know? What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
The Imperative: improve productivity and efficiency,
not the extension with which resources are used
G7
Euro Area
América do Norte
Portugal
Grécia
Hungria
Nova Zelândia
Japão
Islândia
AustráliaEspanha
Canadá
Finlândia
Reino Unido
Suécia
Suiça
Irlanda
Dinamarca
Alemanha
Áustria
Holanda
EUA
Itália
França
Noruega
Luxemburgo
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Diferença da Produtividade Horária Face à Média Comunitária
Efe
ito
do
Nú
me
ro d
e H
ora
s d
e T
rab
alh
o
Produtividade horária menor que a média EU-15Menos horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária maior que a média EU-15Menos horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária maior que a média EU-15Mais horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária menor que a média EU-15Mais horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Contributions of Hourly Productivity and of Hours Worked to the “Gap” in GDP per Capita (1998)
How to increase productivity? There is a need to enhance innovation.
Why? Because Portugal is already competitive in low value-added activities.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
EU
OCDE
Polónia
República Checa
Turquia
Grécia
Espanha
Portugal
Hungria
México
Noruega
Bélgica/Luxemburgo
Finlândia
Itália
Coreia
Nova Zelândia
Holanda
França
Reino Unido
Canada
Austria
Dinamarca
Suécia
Alemanha
Japão
Irlanda
EUA
Austrália
Suiça
Percentagem das Exportações para a União Europeia (1996)
Alto Valor
Médio Valor
Baixo Valor
Proportion of Exports According to the Price/Quality Ratio (Value) of Exported Goods (EUROSTAT)
What is lacking to enhance productivity? a) R&D investment, namely by firms
Reino Unido
Turquia
Suiça
Suécia
Espanha
Portugal
PolóniaNoruega
Holanda
Itália
Irlanda
Hungria
Grécia
Alemanha
França
Finlândia
Dinamarca
República Checa
Bélgica
Nova Zelândia
Coreia Japão
Austrália
EUA
México
Canada
R2 = 0.7(exceptuando Irlanda e México)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4Intensidade em I&D na Indústria
(Despesa em I&D na Indústria/Produção Industrial)
Es
pe
cia
liza
çã
o d
as
Ex
po
rta
çõ
es
em
Se
cto
res
de
Alt
a T
ec
no
log
ia(E
xpo
rta
çõe
s e
m A
lta T
ecn
olo
gia
/To
tal d
e E
xpo
rta
çõe
s)
High Tech Exports and R&D Intensity in Firms (OCDE,2002)
1.6%
1.8%
2.2%
2.7%
3.2%
3.3%
3.5%
3.8%
3.9%
4.1%
4.3%
7.0%
0.7%
1.2%
2.5%
4.0%
2.1%
3.0%
1.6%
1.3%
3.0%
2.4%
3.8%
Portugal
Espanha
Bélgica
Noruega
Reino Unido
Irlanda
Áustria
Holanda
França
Alemanha
Finlândia
Suécia
Indústria Serviços
Firm Revenues Invested in Activities Oriented towards Innovation
What is lacking to enhance productivity? b) expenditure on innovation
c) Portugal also lacks technical skills and competencies
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
Highest Level of Education Attained: Population of 25-64 Years Old (2001)(Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2002)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Portugal
Turkey
Spain
Italy
Greece
Luxemburg
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
France
Hungary
Austria
Finland
Germany
Poland
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
UK
Slovakia
Czech Republic
US
Upper Secondary Education Terciary Education
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
d) Portugal is behind in organizational, as much as in technological, innovation
Rotação dos Trabalhadores
Organização do Trabalho em
Equipas
Maior Envolvimento dos Trabalhadores menos Qualificados
Horizontalização das Estrutura de
Gestão
Alemanha 7 20 19 30Dinamarca 28 40 10 42Espanha 14 34 33 -França 6 30 44 21Holanda 9 9 46 47Irlanda 10 27 32 23Itália 13 28 24 10Portugal 9 22 9 3Reino Unido 13 33 48 45Suécia 38 29 60 46Média (não ponderada) 15 27 33 29
Adoption of Flexible Management Practices OCDE (1999). Employment Outlook
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
Market Regulation and Employment ProtectionNicoletti, Scarpetta & Boylaud; OECD (2000)
What does Portugal have going for it?
200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Chile
Portugal
Polónia
Eslovénia
Irlanda
Reino Unido
Hungria
Nova Zelândia
EUA
Austrália
Canadá
Bélgica
Finlândia
Holanda
Alemanha
Noruega
República Checa
Dinamarca
Suécia
Resultados Médios, População entre 16 e 65 Anos, 1994-1998 (Escala de 0 a 500)
Quantitativa
Leitura
Escrita
a) Portugal is now a dual country: excellence coexists with poor performance
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Chile
Hungria
Polónia
EUA
Eslovénia
Irlanda
Nova Zelândia
Reino Unido
Austrália
Canadá
República Checa
Dinamarca
Bélgica
Noruega
Alemanha
Portugal
Holanda
Suécia
Finlândia
Resultados Médios, População entre 20 e 25 Anos com Educação Secundária Avançada Concluída, 1992-1998 (Escala de 0 a 500)
Written Literacy: Results for Population between 20 and 25
Years with Advanced High School Diplomas
Literacy: Results for the Entire Population
b) Portugal has been growing fast, but less so than other “catching-up” countries
What does Portugal have going for it?
Canada
México
EUA
AustráliaJapão
Coreia
Nova Zelândia
Austria Bélgica
Dinamarca
Finlândia
FrançaAlemanha
Grécia
Hungria
Irlanda
Itália
HolandaNoruegaPolónia
PortugalEspanha
Suécia
Suiça
Turquia
Reino Unido
EU
OCDE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Taxa Média de Crescimento Anual de Patentes Submetidas ao EPO (1990-1996)
Ta
xa
Mé
dia
de
Cre
sc
ime
nto
An
ua
l d
e A
rtig
os
Cie
ntí
fic
os
Pu
bli
ca
do
s
(19
90
-19
95
)
Variation in the Number of Patents and Number of Published Scientific Articles
What does Portugal have going for it?
c) Portugal has a new wealth in incoming people
-50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 300.0% 350.0%
EU
OCDE
França
Australia
Bélgica
Holanda
Canada
Suécia
Noruega
Reino Unido
Alemanha
EUA
Irlanda
Suiça
Luxemburgo
Japão
Espanha
Dinamarca
Portugal
Itália
Austria
Finlândia
Crescimento da Proporção da População Estrangeira (1988-1998)
Growth in the Population of Each Country with Foreign Origin (1988-1998), OECD(2000)
Average Annual Real Value Added Growth of knowledge Based Industries
OECD(2000)OECD(2000)
UK*
Belgium
Portugal**
Greece*
Sweden***
NL*Austria
Japan
Norway
Canada
Denmark
Spain***
Denmark
Mexico
ItalyUS
France
Korea
Germany
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Share in Business Sector Value Added of Knowledge Based Industries (share year 1996 except: *1995;**1993; ***1994)
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
Rea
l V
alu
e A
dd
ed G
row
th
of
Kn
ow
led
ge
Bas
ed I
nd
ust
ries
(19
85-s
har
e ye
ar)
Balanço tecnológico de pagamentos como percentagem do PIB, para o ano mais recente
0.030.080.11
0.190.21
0.270.370.39
0.701.281.29
2.47
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
EspanhaFinlândia
ItáliaFrançaJapão
Portugal
Reino UnidoEUA
AlemanhaHolandaÁustriaBélgica
Notas: E, FIN: 1998; F, EUA:1999; Todos os outros países: 2000.Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento médio anual das receitas da balança de pagamentos em tecnologia para os anos mais recentes
-0.472.80
6.8010.70
11.9012.5013.0013.7014.40
15.8029.20
38.00
-5.00 5.00 15.00 25.00 35.00 45.00
ItáliaEUAReino UnidoFrançaAlemanhaÁustriaHolandaPortugalJapãoBélgicaFinlândiaEspanha
Notas: Valores calculados em PPS a preços de 1995; E, FIN: 1995-1998; EUA, F: 1995-1999; P, UK: 1996-2000; Todos os outros países: 1995-2000
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
In the way of a summary.......
There may be agreement on some general and generic areas for investment (education, science and technology, infrastructures, “social capital” defined in a broad way). But the design and implementation of specific policies meets two challenges:– The lack of understanding of the barriers and opportunities – A lack of qualified people able to understand and interpret
the developmental shortcomings of the country and of designing and implementing, at the firm level or in the public sector, the measures that could overcome these shortcomings.
Portugal needs to jump from a “catching-up” model of economic growth and development, to a model of “forging-ahead” by exploring creativity and ingeniousness by developing and diffusing innovation.
Main indicators from innovation surveys
• Number of innovating firms–by sector
–by firm size
• Cost of innovation
• Percentage of sales due to new products
The Community Innovation Survey, CISThe Community Innovation Survey, CIS
The Community Innovation Survey (CIS)The harmonised EU/OECD questionnaire
• General information about the firm
• Type of innovation (product, process)
• Sources of information for innovation
• Objectives of innovation
• Factors hampering innovation
• Cost of innovation
• Impact of innovation
Survey SampleSurvey Sample• Initial Sample: Initial Sample: 47274727 firms stratified by firm size and sector firms stratified by firm size and sector
(INE–1999 Data)(INE–1999 Data)
• Corrected sample: Corrected sample: 41274127 firms firms
Sectors SurveyedSectors Surveyed• Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale
Trade and a selection of industries in the Service SectorTrade and a selection of industries in the Service Sector
Survey Target PopulationSurvey Target PopulationAll Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employeesAll Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employees
The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 3The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 3Application to PortugalApplication to Portugal
Innovation Defined as: Innovation Defined as: Market introductionMarket introduction of a product (Good or Service) of a product (Good or Service) new or significantly improvednew or significantly improved, or the introduction of new or significantly , or the introduction of new or significantly improved processes, based on new technological developments, new improved processes, based on new technological developments, new combinations of existing technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge combinations of existing technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge acquired.acquired.
• Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and other Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and other industries)industries)
• Questions regarding:Questions regarding:
General InformationGeneral Information
Basic Economic InformationBasic Economic InformationProduct and Process InnovationProduct and Process InnovationPatents and Other Protection MethodsPatents and Other Protection Methods
Innovation Activities and ExpenditureInnovation Activities and ExpenditureIntramural R & DIntramural R & DOther Strategic and Organizational Important ChangesOther Strategic and Organizational Important Changes
Effects of InnovationEffects of InnovationPublic FundingPublic FundingInnovation Co-operationInnovation Co-operationSources of Information for InnovationSources of Information for InnovationHampered Innovation ActivityHampered Innovation Activity
Companies Characteristics
Innovation Extension
Companies Options
Systemic Characteristics
The Third Community innovation SurveyThe Third Community innovation Survey QuestionnaireQuestionnaire
Ireland
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
UK
Sweden
Norway
France
Luxemburg
Belgium
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of Manufacturing Innovating Enterprises
Proportion of Service
Innovating Enterprises
PortugalItaly
(1) For comparison with the data of 1995-1997 some Sub sectors (NACE 63, 73, 74.3 e 64 except 64.2) and the manufacturing companies in between 10 and 20 employees which were part of the CIS 3 survey are not considered
(2) Includes the results not considered in (1).Note: Final disaggregated and comparable results are not yet available for the other
participants in the exercise.
(1)(2)
CIS III(Preliminary)
CIS II
Finland
ConvergenceConvergenceLeading the Convergence towards the EU MeanLeading the Convergence towards the EU Mean
Ireland
GermanyAustria
NetherlandsUK
Sweden
NorwayFrance
Finland
BelgiumPortugal
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Expenditure in Innovating Activities as Share of Turnover
Po
rpo
rtio
n o
f In
no
va
tiv
e E
nte
rpri
se
s
Manufacturing Sector
CIS III(Preliminary)
CIS II
Convergence: Convergence: Input vs OutputInput vs Output
Or Or
Is there evidence of qualitative Is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?changes as well?
Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergencePurely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence
Do results indicate latecomer growth?Do results indicate latecomer growth?
Do qualitative weaknesses remain?Do qualitative weaknesses remain?
Questions to be raised:
Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeEvidence Supporting Qualitative Change ME’s Catching UpME’s Catching Up
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
Manufacturing Services National (3)
Prop
ortio
n of
Inno
vatin
g En
terp
rises
(%)
Small Medium Large Manufaturing Total Services Total National Total
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (CIS II)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (EVCISII)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (CIS III)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeEvidence Supporting Qualitative Change
Innovation pervades the economyInnovation pervades the economy
Note: Note: Less confined to the Technologically advanced sectorsLess confined to the Technologically advanced sectors
Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeEvidence Supporting Qualitative Change
Shift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sectorShift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sector
However, weak However, weak and ambiguous in and ambiguous in
the the manufacturing manufacturing
firms - decrease firms - decrease in marketing & in marketing & training, rise in training, rise in
R&D…R&D…
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Acquisition of Machineryand Equipment
Design, Training andMarketing
Intramural R&D
Extramural R&D
Acquisition of otherExternal Knowledge
Proportion of Total Innovation Expenditures in 2000 (%)
1998-2000 1995-1997
Manufacturing
(E
xpe
nd
iture
s)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Acquisition of Machineryand Equipment
Design, Training andMarketing
Intramural R&D
Extramural R&D
Acquisition of otherExternal Knowledge
Proportion of the Total Innovation Expenditure (%)
1998-2000 1995-1997
(E
xpe
nd
iture
s)
Services
Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeEvidence Supporting Qualitative Change… … consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…
(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)
Business Expenditure in R&D and average growth rates, 1992-2001
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1992 1995 1997 1999 2001
Millio
n P
TE
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Gro
wth
ra
te
BERD at constant 1995 prices
Annual growth rates
Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeEvidence Supporting Qualitative Change… … and with the observed correlation between technological and other innovationsand with the observed correlation between technological and other innovations
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Cha
ngin
gE
nte
rpris
e's
Ma
rke
ting
Con
cep
ts/S
trat
egi
es
Adv
ance
dM
ana
gem
ent
Tech
niqu
es
Sig
nific
ant
Ae
sthe
tics'
Cha
nge
Ne
w C
orp
orat
eS
trate
gie
s
Cha
nge
dO
rga
niza
tion
alS
truc
ture
s
Cha
ngi
ng
Ent
erp
rise'
sM
arke
ting
Co
ncep
ts/S
trate
gie
s
Ad
vanc
edM
ana
gem
ent
Tech
niq
ues
Sig
nifi
cant
Aes
thet
ics'
Cha
nge
New
Cor
pora
teS
trate
gies
Ch
ang
edO
rgan
izat
iona
lS
truct
ure
s
Non-Innovators Innovators
Pro
porti
on
of E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
Manufacturing Services
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...
CIS III population by size
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Manufacture Services All
Small
Medium
Large
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
… … which are much less prone to innovate…which are much less prone to innovate…
CIS III
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manufacturing Services NationalPro
porti
on o
f Inn
ovat
ing
Ent
erpr
ises
(%)
10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 More than 500 employees
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
… … and to middle-low and low technology sectors…and to middle-low and low technology sectors…
CIS III population by Technological Intensity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
High andMedium-HighTechnologies
Medium-LowTechnologies
LowTechnologies
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
… … also less innovativealso less innovative
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Small Medium Large
Enterprise Dimension
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vativ
e E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
Low Medium-Low High and Medium-High Technological Sectors
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
Limited market scopeLimited market scope
Main market scope of innovative enterprises
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Manufacture Services Total
International
National
Local
• The restriction of most firms' targets to the national and local markets sets The restriction of most firms' targets to the national and local markets sets lower innovative challenges;lower innovative challenges;• It also accounts for the unusually high percentage of products "new to the It also accounts for the unusually high percentage of products "new to the market“, especially of servicesmarket“, especially of services
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
Protection MethodsProtection Methods
• Protection of innovation, though mainly developed in house and new to the market, Protection of innovation, though mainly developed in house and new to the market, relies heavily on informal procedures (secrecy, complexity of design, time-to-market)relies heavily on informal procedures (secrecy, complexity of design, time-to-market)
• This also helps to explain the persistence of a low use of formal IPR (patents, This also helps to explain the persistence of a low use of formal IPR (patents, registration of design patterns, copyright): The only exception is trademarks.registration of design patterns, copyright): The only exception is trademarks.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rsManufacturing Services National
Pro
port
ion
of E
nter
pris
es P
rote
ctin
g In
nova
tions
(%
)
At least one Formal Method At least one Informal Method
Patent Applications
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Manufacturing Services NationalN
umbe
r of
Pat
ent A
pplic
atio
ns
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists, The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists, especially in the manufacturing sectorespecially in the manufacturing sector
This is all the more important as there is a significant difference This is all the more important as there is a significant difference in in
qualification between innovative and non-innovative firmsqualification between innovative and non-innovative firms
Workforce with tertiary education
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Manufacture Services Total
Non-innovative Innovative
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation contrasts with that of EUcontrasts with that of EU
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Qua
lifie
dP
erso
nnel
Org
anis
atio
nal
Rig
iditi
es
Inno
vatio
n C
osts
Sou
rces
of
Fin
ance
Info
rmat
ion
onT
echn
olog
y
Eco
nom
ic R
isks
Info
rmat
ion
onM
arke
ts
Reg
ulat
ions
and
Sta
ndar
ds
Cus
tom
erR
espo
nsiv
enes
s
Pro
porti
on o
f Ent
erpr
ises
(%)
CIS III CIS II CIS II EU Average
Evidence Supporting persistent structural Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesweaknesses
• Firms tend not to consider, and even less than in Firms tend not to consider, and even less than in
CIS II, organizational rigidities and lack of qualified CIS II, organizational rigidities and lack of qualified
personnel as barriers.personnel as barriers.
• Firms overemphasize obstacles beyond their control Firms overemphasize obstacles beyond their control (finance, costs, risk) and underemphasize those they (finance, costs, risk) and underemphasize those they can influence.can influence.
• But both qualification of personnel and organizational But both qualification of personnel and organizational
change are in fact associated to innovative firms, and change are in fact associated to innovative firms, and
Portugal has comparatively under-qualified workforcePortugal has comparatively under-qualified workforce
• The The innovative performance of Portuguese firms has innovative performance of Portuguese firms has improvedimproved over the second half of the 1990s, as far as one can over the second half of the 1990s, as far as one can learn from self-reported indicators.learn from self-reported indicators.
Innovation:Innovation: What do we know?What do we know?
• Technological innovation appears to be strongly correlated Technological innovation appears to be strongly correlated withwith Organizational Innovation and Change Organizational Innovation and Change -- there may be there may be limited value-added and returns in looking at technological or limited value-added and returns in looking at technological or organizational innovation per se.organizational innovation per se.
• Important structural weaknesses remainImportant structural weaknesses remain – both – both associated with factors external to the firms and with firm associated with factors external to the firms and with firm behavior, with firms attributing more importance to the former behavior, with firms attributing more importance to the former when asked to indicate barriers to innovationwhen asked to indicate barriers to innovation
• The enhancement in innovative performance has been The enhancement in innovative performance has been accompanied by limited, but significant, accompanied by limited, but significant, structural changesstructural changes – – that is, the improvement in performance goes beyond that is, the improvement in performance goes beyond catching-up dynamics. catching-up dynamics.
• What would the characterization of innovation in Portugal What would the characterization of innovation in Portugal would be like based, instead of self-reported indicators, on would be like based, instead of self-reported indicators, on “independent” assessments“independent” assessments? More specifically, what should ? More specifically, what should we learn, compare, typify and seek to explain about we learn, compare, typify and seek to explain about innovative processesinnovative processes as a whole? as a whole?
• What has the What has the impact of policiesimpact of policies been on the innovation been on the innovation performance of firms? When has it been positive, negative, performance of firms? When has it been positive, negative, redundant (that is, crowding-out what firms would do anyway redundant (that is, crowding-out what firms would do anyway as a response to changing market dynamics). as a response to changing market dynamics).
• What explains the What explains the correlation between technological and correlation between technological and other types of innovationother types of innovation? What are the ? What are the organizational organizational adjustment and learning costs to innovationadjustment and learning costs to innovation and how can and how can they be minimized? Which are the they be minimized? Which are the organizational organizational opportunitiesopportunities and how can they be optimized? and how can they be optimized?
Innovation:Innovation: What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
Innovation:Innovation: What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
• What is generic, and what is specific, to the (still weak) innovative performance of the Portuguese firms? From what we would know to be generic, which lessons from other contexts could we apply in Portugal? From the specificity, what would constitute adequate responses?
• How important is innovation to enhance the welfare of Portugal? What alternatives to “becoming more innovative” would be available to meet the challenge of reaching the European average economic performance?